United States v. Marlon Williams , 590 F. App'x 226 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7242
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARLON WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00317-D-2; 5:12-cv-00027-D)
Submitted: December 19, 2014 Decided: January 14, 2015
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marlon Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marlon Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion that Williams
filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceeding. We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was
not timely filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a
party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty
days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or
order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court
extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or
reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he
timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a
jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,
214 (2007).
The appealed-from order was entered on the district
court’s docket on June 9, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed
on or around August 20, 2014. * Because Williams failed to file a
*
The notice of appeal is not dated, and Williams did not
include proof of mailing or a notarized statement of service.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). However, the envelope in which the
notice of appeal was mailed to the district court is postmarked
August 22, 2014. Accordingly, for the purpose of this appeal,
we assume that Williams tendered the notice of appeal to prison
officials for mailing to the district court two days prior to
the postmark date. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266 (1988).
2
timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3